Posted on 02/20/2006 11:29:29 PM PST by Thunder90
But, But, but,..... Russia said Saddam didn't have any WMD..... That's why they were against the war....
Oh wait, that was half true. Saddam didn't have any WMD, after Russia moved them for him...
If I remember correctly and I am sure I do. The equipment and the bases were under constant surveillance from American air based and space based resources.
Why was this not flagged up at the time.
The movement of all this material would of been noticed and recorded. Why is it the only people who mention this are ex employees of the Pentagon and White House
Is this a real smoking gun or operation muddy the waters.
That is my take on this situation.
We went to war to remove Saddam and to remove the threat of a Nuclear Chemical or Biological Armed Iraq.
The fact there were no WMD found in Iraq has had a major world wide impact on the continuation of the War on Terror.
Our Intelligence agencies have been made to look like idiots at best liars at worst.
It has been a thorn in the side of many governments who want to support the war on terror more fully.
If this is true it is up to the President to go live with this information, citing dates,timings movements and locations.
Ping
Ping
BTTT
This will be ignored as righwingnut craziness by anyone but us.
There is a question that really needs to be asked.
If all the RATS jumped on the "there was no WMD" bandwagon at the same time, who told them that the WMD wasn't there?
I mean, "there is WMD, there is WMD, there is WMD, there are no WMD's in Iraq." Someone told the RATS because they changed their tune very quickly and used it to try and kill Bush's reelection. So who told them and when were they told?
Russia is no friend to the US. All they did was change a geo political global military strategy for a geo political global financial strategy. It was easier to give up all those nations, consolidate, earn enough money to make the elite wealthy and then regroup.
Gee, they have religion there now and some people are making money. Meanwhile they are clamping down on free speech and stealing elections. Wait, that is what the RATS are doing here.
"re :The obvious question is if we know where they are why haven't we done anything to confiscate them."
Look at the politics. If I was a RAT operative if we found them in Lebanon I would go nuts and say how do we know we have them all? In Iraq we knew where they were and Hussein was isolated. That would not only scare people it would embolden the terrorists.
It was politically cheaper for Bush to know that they are secure out of country. Remember, he did the right thing and has the law on his side. All the RATS have is conjecture, innuendo and lies that could all be disproven.
More proof that Russia is our "Friend"==
More like conspiracy theory. Already posted here. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1581496/posts
"Why was this not flagged up at the time."
IIRC - It was part of Powell's report to the UN .. although I don't recall if Powell mentioned where we got the satellite images or who owned the trucks .. and it was only later acknowledged that it was strongly suspected the trucks were Russian.
Right after Condi Rice (who speaks fluent Russian) was appointed SecState - she made a quick trip to Russia. Within a few days of that visit - this story about the trucks being Russian began to filter out. I always wondered if Condi went to inform Putin personally that we knew the trucks belonged to him and the information was going to be made public. I'm guessing .. but it seemed like a strange coincidence.
I believe Israel's images only confirmed what we also knew - but I don't recall whether Powell said where he got the images - although the info was on the internet that the images were satellite video from Israel. And .. I remember watching the presentation and seeing the actual video of the trucks moving from Iraq to Syria.
RAT's do indeed have a lot in common with the RED's
I think it's time for Colin Powell to cue up those satellite photos again showing frantic activity at the Iraq/Syria border in the weeks leading up to Sadaam's downfall.
Sadly, this is a widespread belief, that the "whole point" of the invasion was to "confiscate" some objects (WMDs). I wish people would give it just a moment's thought before they say things like this, because they'd realize how silly that sounds.
You don't invade another country in order to "confiscate" some items, and that was not the "whole point" of the invasion at all.
The whole point of the invasion was to dethrone the government of Saddam Hussein. It was to smash up the power of Hussein and his Baathists so that they no longer ruled that territory. That was the whole point of the invasion, and we succeeded.
Now, were "WMDs" in the mix? Of course: "WMDs" were a reason we wanted to dethrone Saddam Hussein. He had demonstrated a willingness to use them and ambitions to create more. Therefore, that helped convince us of the necessity to dethrone him. (Which was the purpose of the war.)
What about all those "WMDs" arguments we made before the UN? Didn't that make it seem like our goal was to "confiscate" WMDs? Well, no. The reason we were making those arguments was that among other things his ongoing WMD ambition put him in technical violation of some UN resolutions; so "WMDs" were also a reason we argued before the UNSC that they should join us in our war (this argument failed, alas). They were, in a sense, "charges" we tried to bring him up on in front of the UNSC.
But "confiscating" them was NOT "the reason" we invaded. We invaded to depose Saddam Hussein, not to "confiscate" some things.
I doubt there has been any war fought anywhere in recent centuries which one nation launched against another nation solely for the purpose of "confiscating" some objects. It even sounds silly to me.
p.s. Another way to see that my way of looking at things is correct - with my way of looking at things, everyone's actions make sense. With your way of looking at things, everyone's actions make no sense, and you start drawing silly conclusions like we need to "lay waste to" Syria and Lebanon. That's a silly conclusion because it proceeds from a flawed premise (that the "whole point" was to "confiscate" some WMDs). The whole point was to unseat Saddam Hussein's government.
israeli disinfo? really?
How could they have been moved if they didn't exist and if Clinton had destroyed them?
Oh, please Dear Democrats. I have to hear this........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.